Broadband in '06 Net Neutrality will top discussion list Should hotels have the right to block VoIP services over their broadband networks? Should Airlines? Should telcos be allowed to charge for quicker access to websites? Those are a few of the questions USAToday skims over in a piece exploring the broadband industry over the next several years. Odd, the article tags VoIP guru Jeff Pulver as the "mischievous" founder of Free-World Dial-up.
|
  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 |  There will be an accomodation. Result: higher $
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
|
1 edit | Gotta say NO! There is no justification for the Telco's, the Cable Industry or any other party to restrict, tier-meter or create artificial classes of of services not generated by, or intrinsic in the infrastructure, especially when it comes to content. The business of providing communication infrastructure MUST be separated from the provision of content, else inequity, discrimination, and manipulation of the marketplace will displace or relegate whole demographic subdivisons to second or third class status, establish an anti-competive oligarchic market structure, and reduce the overall economic opportunity, class mobility and personal freedom in our society.
As in the other front page story re the evolution of TV and journalism in the internet era, we cannot afford to allow entrenched interests to dictate the availability, quality and substance of the experience and sharing of our culture. | |
|  | | | Re: Gotta say NO! The USA Today story quotes: "They only pay for a broadband loop from a central office to their home," said Whitacre [of AT&T]. Delivering content from Web servers to end users "takes huge (network) backbones to get across the country."
And there's the rub. You thought you were paying for a connection to the Internet backbone. They want to charge you extra for the connection to the internet backbone. They cannot stand the idea that you might have access to content on which they cannot collect revenue. | |
| | |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: Gotta say NO! Actually, they don't want to charge "you" (the end user) more $$. They want to extort more $$ from content providers, who aren't even their customers.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
 a
@rr.com | Nope This just ain't gonna fly. | |
| calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
 ·Comcast Formerl..
| Key to the argument We have to remember that the effort to charge content providers (including, for example, service providers like VoIP companies) $$ for "improved access" to the end user is wrong, effectively extortion, for two reasons:
1. The content provider is NOT the ISP's customer. The end user is. The ISP should be able to offer a wide variety of service levels and options, including selected blocking, to ITS END USER CUSTOMERS, who get to choose if they want to use that ISP or not.
2. Since the content provider doesn't get to chose which ISP is between the provider and the end user, any attempt to charge the content provider is that of a monopolist trying to extort "monopoly rents" from the content provider--the ISP is a monopoly for "access" to a given end user. That is the situation telcos have been in for decades with regard to long distance companies, and that is why Whitacre of ATT is so embracing of it.
This is one of the last gasps from a monopolistic approach by the telcos and their clones, the cable companies. They don't understand competition, and rather than compete, they try to figure out who they can squeeze in a monopoly approach.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Key to the argument Its ludicrous that this is even being considered. | |
| | | | |  Re: Key to the argument
| |
|
| | | I think the plan is a bit more subtle than that. If the large telco/cablecos can tier traffic by source rather than by catagory (ie; VOIP, P2P, HTTP, etc) they get their hand into the Google's, Yahoo, etc.s pockets, and thus lower their prices to end-users by subsidising connections from this potentially substantial income stream (think free TV).
What's so great about this is that it will also benefit the big content providers, allowing them to lock themselves in with customers who will not be in a position to select content in that they really haven't paid anything/full price for their connection.
The offer is being laid on the table, and if Google etc, is smart, they'll take it. The resulting networking effect will snowball and result in amazing market concentration.
In the future no small Google or Skype, or whatever will have a chance going forward because they'll be effectively locked out from reaching their users/customers/audience. Nice if you are an incumbent content provider...or a pipe owner. Very cosy, very stable, and probably quite profitable. Probably very smothering for the culture, though.
Oh, there's another effect: the large pipe owners will have more clout and more payments from the Googles, etc. and thus will be able to steamroll smaller providers who won't have the same $$ from this slush fund to bribe consumers into using their IP "service" which may end up being "free". Thus the scheme takes down any competition that is still on the old model of open access--and the end user paying the freight.
So, what do we end up with? An oligopoly of large content producers and pipe owners...or perhaps they'll merge, and we'll come full circle and we'll have 3 channels of content from three companies: essentially TV al la 1970! But over IP! Cool!
No choice, but to pop another can of Miller/Budweiser/Coors-like beer and enjoy what's on your plate: It's what's for dinner. | |
| | | | | Re: Key to the argument You may want to do a little reading up and rethink your approval of this.
I will leave you with 2 things:
1.) These backbone providers are not attempting to save us (the consumers) money. They are trying to make more money, which does not happen when they give us a break in cost. A subset of this is that not all ISP's that we pay for internet access also own a backbone. There are actually very few backbone providers / ISP's.
2.) If they are not my ISP, they have no right touching any traffic I request/send regardless of whether or not it goes across their backbone. My ISP pays them for their backbone connection, I pay my ISP to get access to that backbone. Google, or whoever, pays for their bandwidth and backbone access just as I do. If they want more and faster access for their customers, they pay for more and always have just like you do if you want more bandwidth or faster access. There is no free ride going on here as these extortionist morons will have you believe. | |
|
| | One More Time I need to remind everyone. KNOW YOU CONGRESSIONAL REPS! Write them, email them, and better yet FAX them (they usually read those). Let them know that if they even HINT at supporting this crap you (and 50 over your closest friends in your neighborhood association), will NOT vote for them in the next election cycle. There are gonna be some pretty slim margins of victory in several races. Yes, politicians go for money 2nd...if they sense the political wind in their face and not at their back...you'd be surprised what cowards they are | |
|
| |
|
|
